Radiomics and machine learning analysis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in colorectal liver metastases prognostic assessment

Machine learning and radiomics analysis by computed tomography in colorectal liver metastases patients for RAS mutational status prediction

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of machine learning and radiomics analysis by computed tomography (CT) in presurgical setting, to predict RAS mutational status in colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

Patient selection in a retrospective study was carried out from January 2018 to May 2021 considering the following inclusion criteria: patients subjected to surgical resection for liver metastases; proven pathological liver metastases; patients subjected to enhanced CT examination in the presurgical setting with a good quality of images; and RAS assessment as standard reference. A total of 851 radiomics features were extracted using the PyRadiomics Python package from the Slicer 3D image computing platform after slice-by-slice segmentation on CT portal phase by two expert radiologists of each individual liver metastasis performed first independently by the individual reader and then in consensus. Balancing technique was performed, and inter- and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the between-observer and within-observer reproducibility of features. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis with the calculation of area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity (SENS), specificity (SPEC), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (ACC) were assessed for each parameter. Linear and non-logistic regression model (LRM and NLRM) and different machine learning-based classifiers were considered. Moreover, features selection was performed before and after a normalized procedure using two different methods (3-sigma and z-score).

RESULTS

Seventy-seven liver metastases in 28 patients with a mean age of 60 years (range 40-80 years) were analyzed. The best predictors, at univariate analysis for both normalized procedures, were original_shape_Maximum2DDiameter and wavelet_HLL_glcm_InverseVariance that reached an accuracy of 80%, an AUC ≥ 0.75, a sensitivity ≥ 80% and a specificity ≥ 70% (p value <  < 0.01). However, a multivariate analysis significantly increased the accuracy in RAS prediction when a linear regression model (LRM) was used. The best performance was obtained using a LRM combining linearly 12 robust features after a z-score normalization procedure: AUC of 0.953, accuracy 98%, sensitivity 96%, specificity of 100%, PPV 100% and NPV 96% (p value <  < 0.01). No statistically significant increase was obtained considering the tested machine learning both without normalization and with normalization methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Normalized approach in CT radiomics analysis allows to predict RAS mutational status in colorectal liver metastases patients.

Machine learning-based radiomics analysis in predicting RAS mutational status using magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of radiomics features, obtained by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with hepatospecific contrast agent, in pre-surgical setting, to predict RAS mutational status in liver metastases.

METHODS

Patients with MRI in pre-surgical setting were enrolled in a retrospective study. Manual segmentation was made by means 3D Slicer image computing, and 851 radiomics features were extracted as median values using the PyRadiomics Python package. The features were extracted considering the agreement with the Imaging Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI). Balancing was performed through synthesis of samples for the underrepresented classes using the self-adaptive synthetic oversampling (SASYNO) approach. Inter- and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the between-observer and within-observer reproducibility of all radiomics characteristics. For continuous variables, nonparametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was utilized. Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment for multiple testing was used. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis with the calculation of area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity (SENS), specificity (SPEC), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (ACC) were assessed for each parameter. Linear and non-logistic regression model (LRM and NLRM) and different machine learning-based classifiers including decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and support vector machine (SVM) were considered. Moreover, features selection were performed before and after a normalized procedure using two different methods (3-sigma and z-score). McNemar test was used to assess differences statistically significant between dichotomic tables. All statistical procedures were done using MATLAB R2021b Statistics and Machine Toolbox (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA).

RESULTS

Seven normalized radiomics features, extracted from arterial phase, 11 normalized radiomics features, from portal phase, 12 normalized radiomics features from hepatobiliary phase and 12 normalized features from T2-W SPACE sequence were robust predictors of RAS mutational status. The multivariate analysis increased significantly the accuracy in RAS prediction when a LRM was used, combining 12 robust normalized features extracted by VIBE hepatobiliary phase reaching an accuracy of 99%, a sensitivity 97%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100% and a NPV of 98%. No statistically significant increase was obtained, considering the tested classifiers DT, KNN and SVM, both without normalization and with normalization methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Normalized approach in MRI radiomics analysis allows to predict RAS mutational status.

Scientific Status Quo of Small Renal Lesions: Diagnostic Assessment and Radiomics

Background: Small renal masses (SRMs) are defined as contrast-enhanced renal lesions less than or equal to 4 cm in maximal diameter, which can be compatible with stage T1a renal cell carcinomas (RCCs). Currently, 50-61% of all renal tumors are found incidentally. Methods: The characteristics of the lesion influence the choice of the type of management, which include several methods SRM of management, including nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, ablation, observation, and also stereotactic body radiotherapy. Typical imaging methods available for differentiating benign from malignant renal lesions include ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Results: Although ultrasound is the first imaging technique used to detect small renal lesions, it has several limitations. CT is the main and most widely used imaging technique for SRM characterization. The main advantages of MRI compared to CT are the better contrast resolution and tissue characterization, the use of functional imaging sequences, the possibility of performing the examination in patients allergic to iodine-containing contrast medium, and the absence of exposure to ionizing radiation. For a correct evaluation during imaging follow-up, it is necessary to use a reliable method for the assessment of renal lesions, represented by the Bosniak classification system. This classification was initially developed based on contrast-enhanced CT imaging findings, and the 2019 revision proposed the inclusion of MRI features; however, the latest classification has not yet received widespread validation. Conclusions: The use of radiomics in the evaluation of renal masses is an emerging and increasingly central field with several applications such as characterizing renal masses, distinguishing RCC subtypes, monitoring response to targeted therapeutic agents, and prognosis in a metastatic context.

Machine Learning and Radiomics Analysis for Tumor Budding Prediction in Colorectal Liver Metastases Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the efficacy of machine learning and radiomics analysis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a hepatospecific contrast agent, in a pre-surgical setting, to predict tumor budding in liver metastases.

METHODS

Patients with MRI in a pre-surgical setting were retrospectively enrolled. Manual segmentation was made by means 3D Slicer image computing, and 851 radiomics features were extracted as median values using the PyRadiomics Python package. Balancing was performed and inter- and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the between observer and within observer reproducibility of all radiomics extracted features. A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney nonparametric test and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis were carried out. Balancing and feature selection procedures were performed. Linear and non-logistic regression models (LRM and NLRM) and different machine learning-based classifiers including decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and support vector machine (SVM) were considered.

RESULTS

The internal training set included 49 patients and 119 liver metastases. The validation cohort consisted of a total of 28 single lesion patients. The best single predictor to classify tumor budding was original_glcm_Idn obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence arterial phase with an accuracy of 84%; wavelet_LLH_firstorder_10Percentile was obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence portal phase with an accuracy of 92%; wavelet_HHL_glcm_MaximumProbability was obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence hepatobiliary excretion phase with an accuracy of 88%; and wavelet_LLH_glcm_Imc1 was obtained in T2-W SPACE sequences with an accuracy of 88%. Considering the linear regression analysis, a statistically significant increase in accuracy to 96% was obtained using a linear weighted combination of 13 radiomic features extracted from the T1-W VIBE sequence arterial phase. Moreover, the best classifier was a KNN trained with the 13 radiomic features extracted from the arterial phase of the T1-W VIBE sequence, obtaining an accuracy of 95% and an AUC of 0.96. The validation set reached an accuracy of 94%, a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

Machine learning and radiomics analysis are promising tools in predicting tumor budding. Considering the linear regression analysis, there was a statistically significant increase in accuracy to 96% using a weighted linear combination of 13 radiomics features extracted from the arterial phase compared to a single radiomics feature.

Comments on "Current status and quality of radiomic studies for predicting KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis"

We read with interest the article from Dr Jia LL and colleagues in Eur J Radiol in which they assessed the methodological quality of radiomics-based studies for non-invasive preoperative prediction of Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutations in patients with colorectal cancer. They systematically evaluated the prediction models diagnostic accuracy of twenty-nine studies between February 2014 and March 2022 and we congratulate the Authors on their accuracy in reporting recent published manuscript about radiomics-based studies to predict KRAS mutations in patients with colorectal cancer however they did not report the impact of contrast administration and the different phases of the contrast study (arterial, portal and transient phase) compared to the EOB phase in this research field.